EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with you about the VLJ's
It was only ideas.
I think the lack of income to ATS for providing a service is possibily the driving feature. Would it make much difference to your flying if they started charging at the min weight level?
I don't have a clue what the charges are.
It was only ideas.
I think the lack of income to ATS for providing a service is possibily the driving feature. Would it make much difference to your flying if they started charging at the min weight level?
I don't have a clue what the charges are.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would it make much difference to your flying if they started charging at the min weight level?
The cost is quite significant.
I think the chronology of actions as you state it is flawed (in part pointed out by IO540).
And what is EASA's motivation for doing this?
The consultation for the Basic Regulation took place in 2004, and it became law via the usual parliamentary process in 2008. It is that Basic Regulation that requires operators based in the EU to have an EU licence. This is not something that has been "done" recently. To examine the motivation for this requirement you'd have to look back at least 6 years, probably much longer, and I suspect that the initiative came from the Commission, not from the then fledgling Agency. The NPA (02/2004) says:
17. As far as third country aircraft are concerned, it seems evident, as dramatically demonstrated by recent accidents, that commercial operations in the Community of third country operators shall be covered. This is the way the United States of America do currently with Federal Aviation Regulation called Part 129. This is less clear for other forms of operations. There are many complaints about third country aircraft based in Europe, far from their State of registry, whose oversight may not be carried out in a proper manner. Registration in a third country sometimes seems to be used to escape local safety requirements. Nothing would prevent the Community from establishing some form of supervision if so decided by the legislator, provided that is done in accordance with the relevant ICAO obligations.
but I'm sure you can construct a Machiavellian motive if you try.
What has happened recently is that the details for "acceptance of licences from third countries" have been proposed. And as I said, they pretty much transposed JAR-FCL1 with minimal change. I think many stakeholders, particularly N-reg operators, were hoping for a much more permissive regime, otherwise is rather difficult to see why they have waited so long to pay attention.
It is the more recent simple transposition of the JAR-FCL1 validation and conversion regime for foreign licences that I attribute to Commission pressure to "stop reinventing the wheels and just use the JARs" in the context of high workload. You don't need to rely on IO-540's Kazatsay quotation, it's well enough documented in the Management Board minutes and subsequent working papers.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are many complaints about third country aircraft based in Europe, far from their State of registry, whose oversight may not be carried out in a proper manner. Registration in a third country sometimes seems to be used to escape local safety requirements
For example there are as many, and probably many more, people flying on bogus maintenance, bogus paperwork (airframe and FCL) on national regs as there are on foreign regs.
If "many complaints" were used to support the basic regulation, then it was done dishonestly.
If I was going to fly "below the radar" I would do it on a national reg. It's quite obvious why.The bit about "as dramatically demonstrated by recent accidents" is irrelevant. Provisions have always existed for a co-operative investigation of say an N-reg 747 which crashes in Europe.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whose oversight may not be carried out in a proper manner. Registration in a third country sometimes seems to be used to escape local safety requirements. Nothing would prevent the Community from establishing some form of supervision if so decided by the legislator, provided that is done in accordance with the relevant ICAO obligations.
There is percieved threat and documented actual threat. There is nothing to show a safety basis regarding private N reg ops in Europe on private jets although I am sure EASA has looked hard and wide to make that connection.
So they rely on percieved threat.
Looking at PPL IR on N reg infact the opposite is the case. The achievable IR is a safety requirement.
Remove the N reg IR, force PPLs to fly VFR and without any shadow of a doubt the accident and death rate will increase to the level of the french which is attrocious.
What could EASA do?? They could deregulate make an EASA FAA type IR and improve safety amongst GA VFR pilots.
They will not do this as it would detract from existing JAA IRs or make an easy route to a JAA IR through the back door.
In that sense EASA are not meeting their responsibilities to their mandate as a safety regulator.
Pace
What could EASA do?? They could deregulate make an EASA FAA type IR and improve safety amongst GA VFR pilots.
They will not do this as it would detract from existing JAA IRs or make an easy route to a JAA IR through the back door.
They will not do this as it would detract from existing JAA IRs or make an easy route to a JAA IR through the back door.
Review the existing JAR-FCL requirements for the Instrument Rating with a view to
evaluate the possibility of reducing these requirements for private pilots flying under
Instrument Flight Rules. This evaluation shall take into account the ICAO Annex 1 SARPs
for the issue of an IR
doesn't it?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
evaluate the possibility of reducing these requirements for private pilots flying under
Instrument Flight Rules.
Instrument Flight Rules.
Yea Yea believe it when I see it! Reducing can mean literally nothing to a model of the FAA IR for PPLs somehow my guess will be the literally nothing category! But then I am still awaiting to be amazed by EASA as to date their track record is far from aviation friendly.
Pace
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We've done this to death already but here we go again......
Why didn't EASA/EU do the "FCL008 IR" FIRST and THEN propose to shaft N-reg pilots into having to get EU IRs?
Anybody with a brain would have done it that way round.
Why?
Because it is an improvement, not a backward step
The "FCL008 IR" is a great proposal but it is coming too late in the process. Many many pilots are too scared of doing the IR (any IR, though it would most likely have been the FAA one) right now, due to the uncertainty. Most of these would have ended up being owners too, so you are looking at a lot of aviation-economic activity which has been shafted by these idiot legislators.
And it may never come - if a whole load of EASA proposals get chucked out or modified in the final (non transparent) stages.
Cynically, I would say that fear and uncertainty is the very currency of the anti N-reg crowd. Of course that is true, 100%. That is why they spread dark rumours (some true, some false) at every opportunity. This is very cost effective. No legislation required, and most of the targetted pilot population sh*ts itself, all by itself
It keeps a damper on progress of the N-reg scene, quite nicely. Only those with balls, and those who realise their flying lifetime is finite, get their fingers out and do it.
Why didn't EASA/EU do the "FCL008 IR" FIRST and THEN propose to shaft N-reg pilots into having to get EU IRs?
Anybody with a brain would have done it that way round.
Why?
Because it is an improvement, not a backward step
The "FCL008 IR" is a great proposal but it is coming too late in the process. Many many pilots are too scared of doing the IR (any IR, though it would most likely have been the FAA one) right now, due to the uncertainty. Most of these would have ended up being owners too, so you are looking at a lot of aviation-economic activity which has been shafted by these idiot legislators.
And it may never come - if a whole load of EASA proposals get chucked out or modified in the final (non transparent) stages.
Cynically, I would say that fear and uncertainty is the very currency of the anti N-reg crowd. Of course that is true, 100%. That is why they spread dark rumours (some true, some false) at every opportunity. This is very cost effective. No legislation required, and most of the targetted pilot population sh*ts itself, all by itself
It keeps a damper on progress of the N-reg scene, quite nicely. Only those with balls, and those who realise their flying lifetime is finite, get their fingers out and do it.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad_Jock :
And who was the Director General of the Belgian CAA until 2008 ? If we're are talking about harmonising European regulation as a goal, then one should avoid individual member states' gold plating.
I have verified your claim and this appears to be correct. However, I'm surprised because, as I recall, the motivation given by the King in the preamble to the law refers to an urgency to implement European regulation, giving the Belgian citizens the incorrect impression that the law is an integral conversion of EU legislation. It would also make the law challengeable before the State Council.
Bookworm :
By "this" I primarily mean NPA 2008-17b and the way EASA has taken consultation and potential consequences into account.
This is nothing more than hearsay, homegrown statistics at best. Imagine the following quote
whis is equally nonsensical.
I haven't used the word Machiavellian, but I was trying to establish the motives behind the main actors in this drama. If you, as an expert consultant to EASA bring this up, it is all the more worrying. But even Macchiavelli had his motives.
Your explanation of "it was all in the basic regulation" and "EASA has been trying to better the world with FCL.008 and is the only organisation who has done this" is contradicted by timing and chronology issues.
Since EASA directors are not naïve, it would almost appear that a FUD-strategy has become their newest tool. For an international air safety organisation, this would simply be beyond the pale. If this were true, then EASA should be abolished straight away. Unless you can show us notes or internal memo's where EASA is warning the Commission of the consequences of pushing through NPA 2008-17b in double-quick time...
That maybe your local CAA rule proudpilot.
I have verified your claim and this appears to be correct. However, I'm surprised because, as I recall, the motivation given by the King in the preamble to the law refers to an urgency to implement European regulation, giving the Belgian citizens the incorrect impression that the law is an integral conversion of EU legislation. It would also make the law challengeable before the State Council.
Bookworm :
and the answer depends very much on what you mean by "this".
As far as third country aircraft are concerned, it seems evident, as dramatically demonstrated by recent accidents[...]
There are many complaints about third country aircraft based in Europe, far from their State of registry, whose oversight may not be carried out in a proper manner. Registration in a third country sometimes seems to be used to escape local safety requirements.
There are many complaints about third country aircraft based in Europe, far from their State of registry, whose oversight may not be carried out in a proper manner. Registration in a third country sometimes seems to be used to escape local safety requirements.
As far as Airbus is concerned, it seems evident, as dramatically demonstrated by recent incidents, that European based aircraft manufacturing may not be carried out in a proper manner.
[...] but I'm sure you can construct a Machiavellian motive if you try.
Your explanation of "it was all in the basic regulation" and "EASA has been trying to better the world with FCL.008 and is the only organisation who has done this" is contradicted by timing and chronology issues.
Since EASA directors are not naïve, it would almost appear that a FUD-strategy has become their newest tool. For an international air safety organisation, this would simply be beyond the pale. If this were true, then EASA should be abolished straight away. Unless you can show us notes or internal memo's where EASA is warning the Commission of the consequences of pushing through NPA 2008-17b in double-quick time...
Last edited by proudprivate; 16th Nov 2010 at 13:33.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mindreading capabilities of IO540
Only those with balls, and those who realise their flying lifetime is finite, get their fingers out and do it.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done 
BTW FUD has been alive and kicking for ages.
Ever since I started working along the FAA PPL (and then the IR and then the CPL) route, starting 2004, I have been fed all kinds of bollox, from all kinds of people. The whole FAA training scene has been packed with disinformation; most of it clearly deliberate. I eventually wrote up a lot of the details and procedures to hopefully reduce the number of people who had to go through the same nonsense.
Paradoxically, among all this, the UK DfT has been excellent, issuing permits for owner-training in N-reg planes very freely. I think they have behaved very professionally. The UK CAA has also been OK, allowing IR checkrides in N-reg planes (with the above DfT permission) and not doing anything to screw around with N-regs based in the UK. Some CAA individuals have been going around expressing "opinions" but in the end these never went anywhere.
This is why I find it curious (from the purely political POV) that the UK CAA is going to just sit there and do nothing other than blindly implement EASA/EU directives. Actually I think the UK CAA and some other CAAs (though probably not the German one ) will find "interesting" implementations....
BTW FUD has been alive and kicking for ages.
Ever since I started working along the FAA PPL (and then the IR and then the CPL) route, starting 2004, I have been fed all kinds of bollox, from all kinds of people. The whole FAA training scene has been packed with disinformation; most of it clearly deliberate. I eventually wrote up a lot of the details and procedures to hopefully reduce the number of people who had to go through the same nonsense.
Paradoxically, among all this, the UK DfT has been excellent, issuing permits for owner-training in N-reg planes very freely. I think they have behaved very professionally. The UK CAA has also been OK, allowing IR checkrides in N-reg planes (with the above DfT permission) and not doing anything to screw around with N-regs based in the UK. Some CAA individuals have been going around expressing "opinions" but in the end these never went anywhere.
This is why I find it curious (from the purely political POV) that the UK CAA is going to just sit there and do nothing other than blindly implement EASA/EU directives. Actually I think the UK CAA and some other CAAs (though probably not the German one
) will find "interesting" implementations....
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isnt the last part of this debate all a little silly?
I admit I havent completely kept up with it, so forgive me if I am wrong, but the suggestion is we shoudlnt worry, EASA are on record that they will enable a simplified IR.
Fine.
EASA are well aware of the intense feelings this has caused. EASA exist to serve us, just like every other arm of Government! That being the case issue a public statement clarrifying their intentions (which does not use words like "little"). I appreciate they cant say what they WILL do, because ultimately that is up to the EP, but they can say what they INTEND to do.
Simple really - but they will not do it, so I am not holding by breath.
The reality is no one (on here at least and a fair few other places) trust EASA one little bit - and is that any surprise. The way they have conducted themselves to date with truths and half truths and smoke screens is a discrace - it is not open government, never has been, and that is terribly wrong with the whole process.
So far as I am concerned they are almost discredited and have but one last chance to redeem themselves.
I admit I havent completely kept up with it, so forgive me if I am wrong, but the suggestion is we shoudlnt worry, EASA are on record that they will enable a simplified IR.
Fine.
EASA are well aware of the intense feelings this has caused. EASA exist to serve us, just like every other arm of Government! That being the case issue a public statement clarrifying their intentions (which does not use words like "little"). I appreciate they cant say what they WILL do, because ultimately that is up to the EP, but they can say what they INTEND to do.
Simple really - but they will not do it, so I am not holding by breath.
The reality is no one (on here at least and a fair few other places) trust EASA one little bit - and is that any surprise. The way they have conducted themselves to date with truths and half truths and smoke screens is a discrace - it is not open government, never has been, and that is terribly wrong with the whole process.
So far as I am concerned they are almost discredited and have but one last chance to redeem themselves.
I haven't used the word Machiavellian, but I was trying to establish the motives behind the main actors in this drama. If you, as an expert consultant to EASA bring this up, it is all the more worrying. But even Macchiavelli had his motives.
The point of my quotation from NPA 02/2004 was simply to illustrate that the FRA issues considerably predate NPA 2008-17b, and to offer EASA's ostensible motive for regulation of FRA. I make no comment on whether the assertions it makes are true, nor whether the conclusions reached and actions taken after the consultation process were the correct ones. But if they weren't, I find it much easier to believe that EASA had straightforward intentions and got the safety management wrong than that it had some ulterior motive.
Unless you can show us notes or internal memo's where EASA is warning the Commission of the consequences of pushing through NPA 2008-17b in double-quick time...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What those consequences are remain to be seen. You clearly feel that they are self-evidently undesirable. If we end up with a BASA including mutual licence acceptance and an achievable IR via FCL.008, do you think that would go some way to addressing the trust deficit that Fuji describes?
EASA have had years and a budget of 97 million Euros 56 million which have gone in salaries to produce the rubbish turned out so far.
They are an organisation whos mandate is to regulate on safety and who have the health of the aviation industry at heart.
On both counts they have failed miserably. Instead they have overregulated in their proposals probably to justify their own jobs rather than taking an opportunity to create a new deregulated platform for aviation which encourages the industry not strangling it with complexity and costs.
Yes they could have done all the above from word go but I fear these are empty objectives churned out to calm the angry oponents of their work so far.
I will believe it when I see it as all we can go on are empty promises and past behaviour.
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day it all boils down to money, not safety.
The FAA are a FEDERAL agency and as such WORK FOR THE PEOPLE, and are paid for BY the people. That is why you can pick up an FAA certificate and it costs bugger all and you can also sit a check ride with an FAA inspector for free if you want. As such they only focus on SAFETY, which is why the FAA system is so safe.
By banning N reg IFR ops, EASA are banning several thousand IRs from being used. This is a step backwards in safety terms, and being a SAFETY AGENCY then by doing this they are clearly working against themselves.
Therefore I deduce that this whole business is due to money, and political pressure again caused by money. Shame really.
The FAA are a FEDERAL agency and as such WORK FOR THE PEOPLE, and are paid for BY the people. That is why you can pick up an FAA certificate and it costs bugger all and you can also sit a check ride with an FAA inspector for free if you want. As such they only focus on SAFETY, which is why the FAA system is so safe.
By banning N reg IFR ops, EASA are banning several thousand IRs from being used. This is a step backwards in safety terms, and being a SAFETY AGENCY then by doing this they are clearly working against themselves.
Therefore I deduce that this whole business is due to money, and political pressure again caused by money. Shame really.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Addressing the trust deficit
What those consequences are remain to be seen. You clearly feel that they are self-evidently undesirable. If we end up with a BASA including mutual licence acceptance and an achievable IR via FCL.008, do you think that would go some way to addressing the trust deficit that Fuji describes?
But we have all witnessed the head of EASA's recent performance in the parliamentary transport committee. Is such a person likely to change his mind ? Is he likely to rally the aviation community towards a common safety goal ? Is he likely to promote a dialogue with Parliament ?
As regards process, trying to negotiate a bilateral agreement through legislation is, as commented ad nauseam in this forum, a very inefficient modus operandi. Pick up any textbook on (international) negotiation if you don't believe me. And what is tangible about FCL.008 at this moment, when he's referring to "a little test" ? Also, the multiple interlockings in EASA's rulemaking proposals exacerbate the uncertainty.
In conclusion :
Could EASA regain the confidence of the stakeholders ? Possibly, although it would require some courageous action at short notice.
Am I going to wait passively and see what happens, hoping for the best ? Hell no.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anybody watching Seebohm's performance in that video ("there are areas where there is no European regulation so we must create some") cannot have any illusions about the EASA/EU project being basically a "jobs for the boys" setup.
Everything I have seen in my correspondence with EASA (on certification) confirms this.
A very good point. Basically, Goudou chucked away the "FCL008 IR" with that statement.
None of it makes any sense.
Everything I have seen in my correspondence with EASA (on certification) confirms this.
And what is tangible about FCL.008 at this moment, when he's referring to "a little test" ?
None of it makes any sense.
Last edited by IO540; 17th Nov 2010 at 11:52.
... as well as a potentially undesirable outcome.
As regards process, trying to negotiate a bilateral agreement through legislation is, as commented ad nauseam in this forum, a very inefficient modus operandi. Pick up any textbook on (international) negotiation if you don't believe me.
BASAs TOMORROW -- IPLs (IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES FOR LICENSING)
An IPL identifies the criteria for the conversion of pilot licenses and ratings relating to the airplane category.
The FAA and JAA reached agreement on the text for a “model” IPL in 2004. The IPL model has not been implemented with EU members due to proposed legislation transferring oversight of licensing to EASA.
Despite all IO-540's comments to the contrary, the FAA has every intention of proceeding with a BASA that includes licences.
And what is tangible about FCL.008 at this moment, when he's referring to "a little test" ?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookworm
I agree with your earlier observations.
As to your comment regarding charity you may be correct, but this could be easily corrected. As an earlier contributor commented EASA's people do little to help themselves by taking any opportunity to demonstrate they are transparent. Inevitably this results in the mistrust that we see, full posts bags for them and a failed process, much of which could have been avoided, unless of course they consider they have no accountability. One cant help but wonder.
I agree with your earlier observations.
As to your comment regarding charity you may be correct, but this could be easily corrected. As an earlier contributor commented EASA's people do little to help themselves by taking any opportunity to demonstrate they are transparent. Inevitably this results in the mistrust that we see, full posts bags for them and a failed process, much of which could have been avoided, unless of course they consider they have no accountability. One cant help but wonder.